Jerry Lee Jenkins: Wrongfully Convicted, Never Gave Up

June 7, 2013 is a day Jerry Lee Jenkins will always remember.  It was the day he joined over three hundred other men and women who were exonerated with the use of post-conviction DNA testing.  Mr. Jenkins had been fighting to prove his innocence since he was wrongfully convicted in 1987 for the brutal rape of a young woman in Waldorf, Maryland.  On the evening of February 6, 1986 the woman, a real estate agent, was at a model home when a man came in, concealed his face with a stocking and pulled a knife on her.  The man covered the woman’s face and proceeded to rape her.  The woman was able to get a partial glance at his face.  The woman would later admit at a photo lineup with Mr. Jenkins and to the jury that Mr. Jenkins looked like the man who attacked her but she was not sure it was him.  An expert from the FBI testified at trial that Mr. Jenkins was within four percent of the population that could have contributed to the biological material left at the crime, which is still a large pool of possible offenders.  Mr. Jenkins was convicted regardless. 

DNA Testing the Next Chapter - The Supreme Court's Ruling in Maryland v. King

On June 3, 2013 the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 opinion in Maryland v. King, holding that when a suspect is arrested with probable cause for a serious offense it is a reasonable search for the officers to collect a DNA swab from the suspect.  Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy analogized the DNA swab to fingerprinting and photographing as legitimate and routine police booking procedures.  The case before the Court involved Mr. King who, in 2009, was arrested for first and second-degree assault  and had a DNA sample taken as part of the routine booking procedures for serious offenses in Maryland.  Maryland law allows DNA samples to be taken from arrestees charged with violent crimes, burglaries, and attempts to commit either a violent crime or burglary. Md. Pub. Saf. Code Ann § 504(a)(3)(i) (Lexis 2011).  The DNA sample was matched to an unsolved rape case from 2003, and Mr. King was subsequently charged and convicted for the 2003 rape.  Mr. King moved to suppress the DNA evidence as it violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and the Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. King finding that the DNA swab, in this context, was an unreasonable search.  The Supreme Court reversed the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision.

Can Silence = Guilt in Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Questioning?

On Wednesday April 17^th, 2012 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Salinas v. Texas.[1]  This case will test an issue that has deeply divided the circuits—whether, even before an arrest, an individual has the right to remain silent during an interview with police, and suffer no legal consequences from this action.   So far, ten lower federal and state courts have ruled that the Fifth Amendment does apply to silence before arrest, and before police have the duty to give Miranda warnings, with about as many lower courts ruling that it does not. 

Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Is Hagel’s Proposed Change an Appropriate Response?

           

On April 8, 2013, new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced[1] that he has ordered the Pentagon to prepare legislation to Congress that would change Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).[2]  Sec. Hagel wants to amend the UCMJ to take away the ability of convening authorities to change the findings of a court-martial for major offenses that would normally require a court-martial. A convening authority is the military officer responsible for appointing court members and the military judge for a court martial. Sec. Hagel also wants to require convening authorities to provide written decisions for their decisions to overturn minor offenses.  Sec. Hagel’s statement said “[t]hese changes . . . would help ensure that our military justice system works fairly, ensures due process, and is accountable.”

An Analysis of the Counterfeiting Problem

On March 28, 2013, Suffolk County officials busted five suspects of an international counterfeiting ring.[1]  The ring sold fashion knockoff items of brands such as North Face, Uggs, Coach, Louis Vuiton, Tory Burch, Michael Kors, Oakley, Kate Spade, Nike, Prada, Tiffany, and other brands stored in Queens facilities.[2]  Every imported item, manufactured in China, was a counterfeit.  All five suspects have been indicted on conspiracy and trademark counterfeiting charges.[3]  This recent news event is an example of direct anti-counterfeiting efforts to fight the counterfeit market.  The fashion industry is one of many industries to have fallen prey to counterfeiting, but legislation and action by the courts and law enforcement have directly impacted the effects and attempts of market penetration by counterfeiters.  This is important because counterfeiting, if expanded to a large scale, can create hazards and a destructive environment –such as when the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority unknowingly bought counterfeit trains from a manufacturer that ended up falling off the tracks.

Cell Phone Tracking: “Hello… is this Uncle Sam?”

On March 28, 2013, an Arizona federal court heard arguments regarding the admissibility of incriminating evidence collected by the FBI using a sophisticated cell phone tracking device, the “Stingray,” in the case of Daniel Rigmaiden.[1]  In 2008, Daniel Rigmaiden was arrested for his alleged involvement in organizing a multi-state operation to defraud the IRS.  Raigmaiden and his conspirators allegedly used approximately 175 different IP addresses to file over 1,900 fraudulent tax returns, and made over $4 million in the process.[2]

Dog Sniff at Home Declared a 4th Amendment Search

On March 26, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Florida v. Jardines, affirming the Florida Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision that a dog sniff at the front door of a house where the police suspected drugs were being grown constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.[1]  This case follows closely behind Florida v. Harris, where the Court in February ruled that an alert from a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is sufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle, reversing the Florida Supreme Court.[2]  The decision in that case was unanimous.

Special Coverage: Should Marriage be Sex-blind?

 The Supreme Court held oral arguments for two same-sex marriage cases this past Tuesday and Wednesday.  Both cases have drawn so much attention that people started to line-up in the front of the Court the Friday prior.  Interestingly, not everyone in line wanted to be part of the historic moment; instead, some of them were paid to be there so interested parties could get the limited seats to the courtroom on the day of the argument—this is the first time that people line up three days in advance at the Supreme Court.[1]  Clearly, this shows the historic prominence of these two cases.